So sánh phương pháp
Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.
| Tổng quan hệ thống phạm vi tuân thủ PRISMA× | Tổng quan phạm vi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Lĩnh vực | Trắc lượng khoa học | Trắc lượng khoa học |
| Họ | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Năm ra đời≠ | 2018 (PRISMA-ScR extension); 2005 (scoping review framework) | 2005 |
| Người khởi xướng≠ | Tricco et al. (PRISMA-ScR); Arksey & O'Malley (scoping review framework) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Loại≠ | Evidence synthesis — scoping review with standardized reporting | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Công trình gốc≠ | Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Tên gọi khác | PRISMA-ScR scoping review, scoping review with PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA scoping review, transparent scoping review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Liên quan | 6 | 6 |
| Tóm tắt≠ | A PRISMA-compliant scoping review is a scoping review conducted and reported according to the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) extension, a 20-item checklist plus explanation published by Tricco et al. in 2018. Scoping reviews map the breadth and volume of evidence on a topic without synthesizing effect sizes; the PRISMA-ScR overlay adds transparency, reproducibility, and reporting completeness standards analogous to those PRISMA provides for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. | A scoping review is a systematic evidence-synthesis method that maps the breadth and nature of research on a topic — identifying key concepts, evidence types, and gaps — without necessarily appraising study quality or pooling effect sizes. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by Levac and colleagues (2010), it is particularly valuable for emerging or heterogeneous fields where a full systematic review would be premature or infeasible. |
| ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu ↗ |
|
|